I don't know the answer to this but my take on it would be that the
proper defendant would be the radio station, because it was pointed
out in Alcock that seeing a disaster on TV could never amount to
sufficient proximity unless they did close ups, which the don't, but
if they did then the TV station would be the right person to take the
action against. So i wonder here if the fact that they said that all
the people were killed would make it comparable to doing the close ups-
as in if it was 80 out of 100 died then she would have no claim as she
wouldn't know they were dead but the fact it was "all" meant that she
knew they were definitely dead...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1
Study Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
